Special education due process and state complaints, answered with every allegation tied to the page that proves it
Chronologies in hours, not weeks, with every allegation tied to the page that proves it.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software for school districts that answers special education due process complaints and written state complaints under IDEA. Eight AI agents split each complaint into allegations and start the clocks, build one chronology from every system with each event cited to its page, sort the evidence for each allegation, argue the family's side, work out the remedy and draft the response and hearing binder. The Director of Special Education decides each allegation, and district counsel second-reviews and signs.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
Special education due process and written state complaints run on clocks that start the day the complaint is received: 60 days for the state's written decision, a district response the state sets at 10 to 15 business days, and for a due-process complaint 10 days to respond, 15 to hold the resolution meeting and 45 for the hearing decision after the resolution period. The district's answer sits in six to ten systems: the IEP system, the provider service log, email, the student information system, document management, the learning management system and the state complaint portal.
So a due process paralegal emails each system owner for records, waits a week or two for PDFs, reads every page and types dated events into a chronology, then a second table for each allegation. Counsel reads it late, the director decides late, and the binder, redactions and privilege log are built by hand. The district often learns its weakest point from the state investigator: a missing prior written notice, a missed make-up session or an unanswered parent email becomes a finding and a corrective action plan. And the family's letter goes out late, often only in English, though prior written notice must be in the parent's native language.
Estimated split for one state complaint like SC-2026-031, with a 1,284-page binder read from seven systems, by hand and with the solution.
Eight agents read, sort and draft every complaint; the director decides and counsel signs.
Lucía Ferrer filed a written state complaint, in Spanish, about her son Daniel's services in grade 3 at Harbor View Elementary, in Marlow Bay Unified School District. The state received it on Sept 28, 2026; its letter asks for the district's response by Oct 23, and the decision is due Nov 27. Today is Wednesday, Oct 21. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Alma has 10 open matters, 2 clocks due this week (both on Friday, Oct 23), 3 items waiting for her and 17 of 17 responses on time since July 1. Needs you: decide allegation 3 of SC-2026-031, approve the resolution meeting offer for DP-2026-014, which is escalated, and confirm 3 proposed allegations for a complaint that arrived this morning.
DP-2026-014 is escalated to her: its 10-day response is due Oct 23 and it is not yet in counsel review.
SC-2026-035, for Noah P. at Linden Park Middle, arrives from the state portal. In 7 steps and 6.4 seconds the Complaint reader checks validity (signature, facts, the one-year limit), splits it into 3 allegations in the parent's words, each with its rule and confidence: the three-year reevaluation (300.303(b)(2)), a behavior intervention plan never written (300.324(a)(2)(i)) and a half-day schedule without written notice (300.503). It sets the state decision for Dec 20 and the district response for Nov 12, and places a records hold.
The Complaint reader proposes allegations; the paralegal keeps or edits each one.
For SC-2026-031 the Records agent read 1,284 pages from seven systems, read-only and only for the student named in the complaint. The Chronology agent built 212 dated events in 41 minutes, each pinned to its page, grouped by month, with its source system and the allegations it bears on.
The Chronology agent never infers a date that is not in a record.
The complaint runs down the left as five numbered allegations, each with its rule, its counts and its decision. The 2025–26 school year runs across the top. Selecting allegation 3, speech therapy from September to December 2025, lights only its events: 4 that support the district, 4 that support the family and 2 gaps in the record. The Allegation agent recommends conceding it, at 93% confidence.
Two clocks in the header: the state decision, day 23 of 60 (Nov 27), and the district response, due Oct 23 — in 2 days.
The IEP requires 30 minutes of speech therapy a week. Sixteen sessions were scheduled from Sept 2 to Dec 19, 2025, and 11 delivered: 7 before the speech-language pathologist left on Oct 16, 4 after contracted coverage began on Nov 24. Opening the event shows the provider service log, page 5, with the fact highlighted. The two gaps: no prior written notice when the provider changed, and no make-up entered under district procedure SE-410.
Oct 20 – Nov 21, 2025: 5 sessions scheduled, 0 delivered · reason “not delivered: no provider (position vacant)” · minutes missed: 150 · make-up scheduled: none entered.
The Family-Advocate agent writes the family's side of every allegation, strongest first, beside the district's answer. Allegation 3 is rated strong: the district knew on Oct 16 the position was vacant, sent no prior written notice and made up none of the five sessions under SE-410. Allegations 1 and 4 are rated moderate, each with its citations. Its work is attorney work product, walled off from the family file.
It argues from the record only, with no speculation.
Required 16 × 30 = 480 minutes, from the IEP service grid. Delivered 11 × 30 = 330, from the provider log. Made up: 0. Owed: 150. The draft offer is five 30-minute sessions on Tuesdays, 3:15–3:45 pm, with the contracted provider, finished by Jan 29, 2027, at an estimated $475, and a resolution meeting on Oct 28 or 29 at 4:00 pm with a Spanish interpreter.
The Remedy agent drafts offers; the director approves and counsel signs.
Alma concedes allegation 3 with the reason code “Record supports the family”, adds a note on the five missed sessions, and offers the resolution meeting and the 150-minute compensatory offer. She contested allegations 1 and 2 and offered resolution on 4 and 5 the day before; Jonah Pell, the compliance coordinator, had confirmed the sort of allegation 5 because the agent's confidence, 66%, was below the 70% line.
Counsel must second-review before anything is sent.
From her decisions, the Response writer drafts the response to the state and the letter to Ms. Ferrer, paragraph by paragraph in Spanish and English, reviewed by Ines Barca, the translation reviewer. Before it leaves, the checks read: 5 of 5 allegations decided, 0 privileged passages with 14 items withheld, 23 pages redacted, 31 citations, due Oct 23 with 2 days to spare. Alma sends it to counsel.
Only the director sends the decisions.
Renata checks the binder (87 exhibits, 1,284 pages), the privilege log (14 items), the redactions (23 pages) and that the letter matches the five decisions, then signs: “Reviewed and approved as counsel for the district.” The response goes to the state portal and the letter to Ms. Ferrer, two days before the deadline, and every step is on the audit trail.
Nothing leaves without the director's decision and counsel's signature.
The same state complaint, seen by the four people who carry it: what their weeks looked like, and what they look like now.
Eight agents read, sort and draft every complaint; the director decides and counsel signs.
Reads a state complaint or due-process complaint in any language, checks that it is valid, splits it into numbered allegations, matches each to its rule, starts the clocks and places a records hold.
Pulls every record for the student and the complaint period from the IEP system, service log, email archive, student information system, document management and learning management system.
Builds one dated chronology from every record, each event pinned to its page, and flags records a rule expects that are missing.
Maps every event to the allegations it bears on and sorts it: supports the district, supports the family, or gap in the record. Recommends concede, offer resolution or contest, with a confidence.
Argues the strongest fair reading of every allegation from the family's side, rated and cited, so the district sees its weak points before the state investigator does.
Computes required, delivered and made-up minutes, estimates the compensatory services a fair resolution would owe, with the arithmetic cited, and drafts the resolution offer and corrective actions.
Drafts the response to the state and the letter to the family in the home language, English beside it, from the director's decisions.
Builds the indexed, page-numbered binder for the state or a hearing, with the privilege log and redactions.
Decides, then second-reviews and signs. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about an allegation, a clock or a remedy, or say what the agents should do from now on. Every answer cites its source and opens the screen it is about.
Where is the district weakest in SC-2026-031?
Allegation 3, missed speech therapy. The service log shows 11 of 16 weekly sessions delivered and 5 missed from Oct 20 to Nov 21 while the position was vacant: 150 minutes. No prior written notice went to the family when the provider changed, and no make-up sessions were entered under procedure SE-410. The agents recommend conceding it with a 150-minute compensatory offer.
How many compensatory minutes does Daniel's case owe?
150 minutes. The IEP requires 30 minutes weekly: 16 sessions, 480 minutes from Sept 2 to Dec 19. The logs show 330 minutes delivered and none made up. Allegation 1 adds a re-test, not minutes.
Which clocks run out this week?
Two, both on Friday, Oct 23: SC-2026-031, the district response to the state, with one decision left (allegation 3); and DP-2026-014, the 10-day response to the due-process complaint (34 CFR 300.508(e)), escalated to you because it is not yet in counsel review.
Send prior written notice whenever a provider changes
Done. New rule: when a related-service provider changes or a session is not delivered, the agents draft a prior written notice in the family's home language for the case manager to sign. It applies to every student from today; you can change it in Settings.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The IDEA timelines, who decides and signs, and how records are kept are settings, changed by an administrator and logged.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| District response to the state | 15 business days | 15 · 10 · 20 business days, from the state's letter |
| Warn the owner | 5 days before | 5 · 7 · 3 days before any response or disclosure date |
| Escalate to the director | 2 days before | 2 · 3 days before, when a matter is not yet in counsel review |
| Decides each allegation | Alma Varnado | Alma Varnado · Deputy director (backup) |
| Second review and signature | Renata Quill | Renata Quill · Outside counsel (backup) |
| Family letters in another language | Ines Barca (Spanish) | Ines Barca (Spanish) · District language services |
| Keep matter records | 7 years after close | 5 · 7 · 10 years after close |
| Access review | Monthly | Monthly · Quarterly |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample district data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (CADRE national state dispute resolution data for SY 2023–24, via K-12 Dive and CSBA — 9,927 written state complaints, 79% above the 10-year mean of 5,537, and 81% decided within 60 days against a 92% average; AASA survey of superintendents, via the Thomas B. Fordham Institute — about $10,500 in legal fees per due-process complaint; IDEA timelines from 34 CFR Part 300). People, schools, the district and the cases named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software for school districts that answers special education due process complaints and written state complaints under IDEA. Eight AI agents split each complaint into allegations and start the clocks, build one chronology from every system with each event cited to its page, sort the evidence for each allegation, argue the family's side, work out the remedy and draft the response and hearing binder. The Director of Special Education decides each allegation, and district counsel second-reviews and signs.
A written state complaint (34 CFR 300.151–153) alleges a violation within the past year and is investigated and decided by the state, in writing, within 60 days. A due-process complaint (300.507–515) can reach back two years and leads to a hearing: the district responds within 10 days, holds a resolution meeting within 15, and a hearing decision follows within 45 days after the 30-day resolution period. The solution runs both kinds in one queue, each on its own clocks.
Clocks start from the date of receipt: the 60-day state decision, the district response the state sets, and the due-process response, resolution meeting, resolution period and hearing decision. Owners are warned 5 days before a response or disclosure date, and a matter not yet in counsel review is escalated to the director 2 days before. Both are settings.
The Remedy agent takes the required minutes from the IEP service grid, the delivered minutes from the provider service log and any make-up entered under district procedure, and cites each line. On the sample complaint that is 480 required, 330 delivered and 0 made up: 150 minutes owed, offered as five 30-minute sessions. The director approves the offer and counsel signs.
No. The Family-Advocate agent's analysis is attorney work product, behind a privilege wall with counsel notes and remedy drafts. Privileged items are listed in the privilege log, and before release the response is checked for privileged passages.
The Response writer drafts the family's letter in the home language with English beside it, paragraph by paragraph, and a named translation reviewer checks it before counsel. The director can also add a rule in plain words, such as drafting a prior written notice in the home language whenever a related-service provider changes.
Yes. The agents propose, sort, draft and recommend; they never decide, sign or send. The director decides each allegation with a reason code, counsel second-reviews and signs, the person who decides cannot sign, and sorts below an agent's confidence line go to a person.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your procedures, your state's complaint rules and a closed matter with its records — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own matters first.
Every draft IEP read against the rule before the meeting, not a sample after it.
1-min demoSection 504 Plan ManagementEvery teacher sees the plan, and every test is checked before it starts.
1-min demoCollege Disability Accommodation ManagementEvery accommodation tied to cited evidence, and like cases decided alike.
1-min demoWe'll run Special Education Due Process & State Complaints on one of your own closed matters and its records.